参照文献

[邦訳文献の有無については未確認]

• Ahmed, S. (2019) What’ s the Use? Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Allison, D. B. et al. (2016) Reproducibility: A Tragedy of Errors. Nature 530: 27–30.
• Andersen, H. (2016) Collaboration, Interdisciplinarity, and the Epistemology of Contemporary Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 56: 1–10.
• Ankeny, R. A. and Leonelli, S. (2016) Repertoires: A Post-Kuhnian Perspective on Scientific Change and Collaborative Research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 60: 18–28.
• Arnaud, E. et al. (2020) The Ontologies Community of Practice: An Initiative by the CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture. Patterns 1: 100105. https://www.cell.com/patterns/pdf/S2666-3899(20)30139-2.pdf.
• Barnes, B. (2001) Practice as Collective Action. In Schatzki, T. R. et al. (eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge, 17–28.
• Bartling, S. and Friesike, S. (eds.) (2014) Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Beaulieu, A. and Leonelli, S. (2021) Data and Society: A Critical Introduction. London: SAGE.
• Benjaminsen, T. A. and Svarstad, H. (2021) Political Ecology: A Critical Engagement with Global Environmental Issues. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Bezuidenhout, L. et al. (2017) Beyond the Digital Divide: Towards a Situated Approach to Open Data. Science and Public Policy 44(4): 464–75.
• Bilder, G., Lin, J. and Neylon, C. (2020) The Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure. https://doi.org/10.24343/C34W2H.
• Bonneuil, C. (2019) Seeing Nature as a Universal ‘Store of Genes’: How Biological Diversity Became ‘Genetic Resources’, 1890–1940. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science 75: 1–14.
• Borgman, C. L. (2016) Big Data, Little Data, No Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Boulton, G. et al. (2012) Science as an Open Enterprise. The Royal Society Science Policy Centre report 02/12. London: The Royal Society.
• Bowker, G. et al. (2010) Towards Information Infrastructure Studies: Ways of Knowing in a Networked Environment. In Hunsinger, J. et al. (eds.), International Handbook of Internet Research. Dordrecht: Springer, 97–117.
• Burgelman, J.-C. (2021) Politics and Open Science: How the European Open Science Cloud Became a Reality. Data Intelligence 3(1): 1–19.
• Burgelman, J.-C. et al. (2019) Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century. Frontiers in Big Data 2: 43.
• Caporael, L. R., Griesemer, J. R. and Wimsatt, W. C. (eds.) (2013). Developing Scaffolds in Evolution, Culture, and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Cartwright, N. et al. (2022) The Tangle of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chang, H. (2013) Water Is Not H2O: Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Springer.
• Chang, H. (2022) Realism for Realistic People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Chen, L., Okune, A., Hillyer, B., Albornoz, D. and Posada, A. (eds.) (2019) Contextualising Openness: Situating Open Science. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
• Chubin, D. E. (1985) Open Science and Closed Science: Trade-offs in a Democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 10(2): 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398501000211.
• Code, L. (2006) The Politics of Epistemic Location. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Collins, R. (1998) The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
• Colombetti, G. (2014) The Feeling Body: Affective Science Meets the Enactive Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Currie, A. (2018) Rock, Bone and Ruin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Curry, H. A. (2022) Endangered Maize: Industrial Agriculture and the Crisis of Extinction. Oakland: University of California Press.
• Daston, L. and Galison, P. (1992) The Image of Objectivity. Representations 40: 81–128.
• Della Porta, D. and Diani, M. (1999) Social Movements: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• De Melo-Martín, I. and Intemann, K. (2018) The Fight against Doubt: How to Bridge the Gap between Scientists and the Public. New York: Oxford University Press.
• De Sousa Santos, B. and Meneses, M. (2020) Knowledges Born in the Struggle: Constructing the Epistemologies of the Global South. London: Routledge.
• Dupré, J. and Leonelli, S. (2022) Process Epistemology in the COVID Era: Rethinking the Research Process to Avoid Dangerous Forms of Reification. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science 12:20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00450-4.
• Edwards, M. A. and Roy, S. (2017) Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science 34(1). https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223.
• Edwards, P. (2010) The Vast Machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Edwards, P. N., Mayernik, M. S. and Batcheller, A. (2011) Science Friction: Data, Metadata, and Collaboration in the Interdisciplinary Sciences. Social Studies of Science 41(5): 667–90.
• Elliott, K. (2020) A Taxonomy of Transparency in Science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 53(3): 342–55.
• Elliott, K. and Resnik, D. B. (2019) Making Open Science Work for Science and Society. Environmental Health Perspectives 127: 075002. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4808.
• European Commission (2016) Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World: A Vision for Europe. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/open-innovation-open-science-open-world.
• European Commission (2018) Open Science: Altmetrics and Rewards. Final Report for the Mutual Learning Exercise Open Science: Altmetrics and Rewards of the European Commission. https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/policy-support-facility/mle-open-science-altmetrics-and-rewards.
• Fecher, B. and Friesike, S. (2014) Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought. In Bartling, S. and Friesike, S. (eds.), Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing. Dordrecht: Springer, 17–47.
• Feest, U. (2019) Why Replication Is Overrated. Philosophy of Science 86(5): 895–905.
• Fernandez Pinto, M. (2020) Open Science for Private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to the Commercialisation of Research. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analysis 5: 588331. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.588331.
• Feyerabend, P. (1978) Science in a Free Society. London: Verso.
• Fricker, M. (2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Frischmann, B. M., Madison, M. J. and Strandburg, K. J. (eds.) (2014) Governing Knowledge Commons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gerson, E. M. (2013) Integration of Specialties: An Institutional and Organizational View. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44(4a): 515–24.
• Guttinger, S. (2020) The Limits of Replicability. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 10: 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-019-0269-1.
• Hackett, E. J. et al. (2017) The Social and Epistemic Organization of Scientific Work. In Felt, U. et al. (eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 733–64.
• Harding, S. (1995)“Strong Objectivity”: A Response to the New Objectivity Question. Synthese 104(3): 331–49.
• Harding, S. (2011) The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Harding, S. (2015) Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Hayden, C. (2003) When Nature Goes Public. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Hecker, S. et al. (2018) Citizen Science: Innovations in Open Science, Society and Policy. London: UCL Press.
• Heesen, R. and Bright, L. K. (2019) Is Peer Review a Good Idea? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72(3): 635–63.
• Herzog, L. (2023) Democratic Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hesse, M. (1974) The Structure of Scientific Inference. London: Macmillan.
• Intemann, K. (2009) Why Diversity Matters: Understanding and Applying the Diversity Component of the National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion. Social Epistemology 23(3–4): 249–66.
• Intemann, K. (2020) Understanding the Problem of‘Hype’: Exaggeration, Values, and Trust in Science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 52(3): 279–94.
• Jensen, J. L. (2020) Digital Feudalism. In Jensen, J. L. (ed.), The Medieval Internet: Power, Politics and Participation in the Digital Age. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, 95–109.
• Johnson, R. et al. (2022) Intelligent Open Science: A Case Study of Viral Genomic Data Sharing during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Report prepared on behalf of the UK Government Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Research Consulting. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1118628/intelligent-open-science.pdf.
• Kelty, C. (2007) Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Open Software. Oakland: University of California Press.
• Kelty, C. (2019) The Participant: A Century of Participation in Four Stories. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Kitcher, P. (2001) Science, Truth and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Knorr Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How Science Makes Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Krige, J. (ed.) (2022) Knowledge Flows in a Global Age: A Transnational Approach. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Lakatos, I. (1978) The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Landecker, H. (forthcoming). American Metabolism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Leonelli, S. (2012) When Humans Are the Exception: Cross-Species Databases at the Interface of Clinical and Biological Research. Social Studies of Science 42(2): 214–36.
• Leonelli, S. (2016) Data-Centric Biology: A Philosophical Study. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Leonelli, S. (2018a) Global Data Quality Assessment and the Situated Nature of ‘Best’ Research Practices in Biology. Data Science 16(32): 1–11.
• Leonelli, S. (2018b) Re-Thinking Reproducibility as a Criterion for Research Quality. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 36 (B): 129–46.
• Leonelli, S. (2019a) Data– From Objects to Assets. Nature 574: 317–21.
• Leonelli, S. (2019b) Scientific Agency and Social Scaffolding in Contemporary Data-Intensive Biology. In Wimsatt, W. and Love, A. (eds.), Beyond the Meme: Articulating Dynamic Structures in Cultural Evolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 42–63.
• Leonelli, S. (2020) Scientific Research and Big Data. In Zalta, E. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-big-data/.
• Leonelli, S. (2021) Data Science in Times of Pan(dem)ic. Harvard Data Science Review 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.fbb1bdd6.
• Leonelli, S. (2022a) How Data Cross Borders: Globalizing Plant Knowledge through Transnational Data Management and Its Epistemic Economy. In Krige, J. (ed.), Knowledge Flows in a Global Age: A Transnational Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 305–43.
• Leonelli, S. (2022b) Process-Sensitive Naming: Trait Descriptors and the Shifting Semantics of Plant (Data) Science. Philosophy, Theory and Practice in Biology. 14: 16. https://doi.org/10.3998/ptpbio.3364.
• Leonelli, S. and Ankeny, R. A. (2012) Re-Thinking Organisms: The Epistemic Impact of Databases on Model Organism Biology. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43(1): 29–36.
• Leonelli, S. and Lewandowsky, S. (2023) The Reproducibility of Research in Flanders: Fact Finding and Recommendations. Thinkers report of the KVAB (Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts).
• Levin, N. et al. (2016) How Do Scientists Understand Openness? Exploring the Relationship between Open Science Policies and Research Practice. Bulletin for Science & Technology Studies 36: 128–41.
• Levin, N. and Leonelli, S. (2017) How Does One‘Open’ Science? Questions of Value in Biological Research. Science, Technology and Human Values 42(2): 280–305.
• Levins, R. (1966) The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology. American Scientist 54: 421–31.
• Lewandowski, S. and Bishop, D. (2016) Research Integrity: Don’t Let Transparency Damage Science. Nature 529: 459–61.
• Longino, H. (1990) Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Longino, H. (2001) The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Longino, H. (2003) The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Louafi, S. et al. (2022) Communities of Practice in Crop Diversity Management: From Data to Collaborative Governance. In Williamson, H. and Leonelli, S. (eds.), Towards Responsible Plant Data Linkage. Dordrecht: Springer, 273–88.
• Love, A. C. (2008) Explaining the Ontogeny of Form: Philosophical Issues. In Plutynski, A. and Sarkar, S. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy of Biology. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 223–47.
• Lusk, G. and Elliott, K. C. (2022) Non-epistemic Values and Scientific Assessment: An Adequacy-for-Purpose View. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 12: 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00458-w.
• McLeod, M. and Nersessian N. (2013) The Creative Industry of Integrative Systems Biology. Mind & Society 12: 35–48.
• Mäki, U., Fernández Pinto, M. and Walsh, A. (eds.) (2018) Scientific Imperialism: Exploring the Boundaries of Interdisciplinarity. London: Routledge.
• Massimi, M. (2022) Perspectival Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Maxson Jones, K., Ankeny, R. A. and Cook-Deegan, R. (2018) The Bermuda Triangle: The Pragmatics, Policies, and Principles for Data Sharing in the History of the Human Genome Project. J Hist Biol. 51(4): 693–805.
• Mayernik, M. S. (2017) Open Data: Accountability and Transparency. Big Data and Society 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717718853.
• Merton, R. (1973 (1942)) The Normative Structure of Science. In The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 267–78.
• Merton, R. (1968) The Matthew Effect in Science. Science 159(3810): 56–63.
• Miedema, F. (2021) Open Science: The Very Idea. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Miles, C. (2019) The Combine Will Tell the Truth: On Precision Agriculture and Algorithmic Rationality. Big Data & Society 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719849444.
• Mirowski, P. (2018) The Future of (Open) Science. Social Studies of Science 48(2): 171–203.
• Mitchell, S. (2003) Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Montgomery, L. et al. (2021) Open Knowledge Institutions: Reinventing Universities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Morgan, M. 2010. Travelling Facts. In Howlett, P. and Morgan, M. (eds.), How Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 36–86.
• Morgan, M. (2014) Resituating Knowledge. Philosophy of Science 81(5): 1012–24.
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019) Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Nature (2018) US Proposal for Defining Gender Has No Basis in Science. Nature 563: 5.
• Nerlich, B. et al. (2018) Science and the Politics of Openness: Here Be Monsters. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• Nersessian, N. (2022) Interdisciplinarity in the Making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Nguyen, C. Thi (2021) Transparency Is Surveillance. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 00: 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12823.
• Nowotny, H. (2021) In AI We Trust: Power, Illusion and Control of Predictive Algorithms. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• O’Neill, O. (2002) A Question of Trust: The BBC Reith Lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Open Letter (2021) Support Data Sharing for COVID-19. COVID-19 Data Portal. www.covid19dataportal.org/support-data-sharing-covid19.
• Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science. Science, 349(6251). www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac4716.
• Oreskes, N. (2019) Why Trust Science? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Oreskes, N. and Conway, R. (2010) Merchants of Doubt. London: Bloomsbury.h
• Owen, R., von Schomberg, R. and Macnaghten, P. (2021) An Unfinished journey? Reflections on a Decade of Responsible Research and Innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 8(2): 217–33.
• Popper, K. (2011 (1945)) The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge.
• Potochnik, A. (2017) Idealisation and the Aims of Science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Prainsack, B. (2020) The Political Economy of Digital Data. Policy Studies 41(5): 439–46.
• Radder, H. (1996) In and About the World: Philosophical Studies of Science and Technology. New York: The State University of New York.
• Radder, H. (ed.) (2010) The Commodification of Academic Research. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Radder, H. (2019) From Commodification to the Common Good. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Romero, F. (2019) Philosophy of Science and the Replicability Crisis. Philosophical Compass 14: e12633. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12633.
• Ross-Hellauer, T. et al. (2022) Dynamics of Cumulative Advantage and Threats to Equity in Open Science: A Scoping Review. Royal Society Open Science 9(1): 211032. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211032.
• Rothblatt, S. (1985) The Notion of an Open Scientific Community in Historical Perspective. In Gibbons, M. and Wittrock, B. (eds.) Science as a Commodity: Threats to the Open Community of Scholars. Harlow: Longman Publishing Group, 21–76.
• Rouse, J. (1987) Knowledge and Power: Towards a Political Philosophy of Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Rouse, J. (2002) How Scientific Practices Matter. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Rouse, J. (2015) Articulating the World: Conceptual Understanding and the Scientific Image. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Sheehan, N., Leonelli, S. and Botta, F. (2023) From Collection to Analysis: A Comparison of GISAID and the COVID-19 Data Portal. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.13.5406348.
• Solomon, M. (2001) Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Solar, L. et al. (2014) Science After the Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History and Social Studies of Science. London: Routledge.
• Strasser, B. J. et al. (2018). Citizen Science? Rethinking Science and Public Participation. Science & Technology Studies 32(2): 52–76.
• Thompson, E. (2022) Escape from Model Land: How Mathematical Models Can Lead Us Astray and What We Can Do About It. London: Basic Books.
• UNESCO (2021) Recommendation on Open Science. https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/recommendation.
• United Nations (2019) Towards Global Open Science: Core Enabler of the UN 2030 Agenda. https://research.un.org/ld.php?content_id=50970566.
• Vermeir, K. et al. (2018) Global Access to Research Software: The Forgotten Pillar of Open Science Implementation. A Global Young Academy Report. Halle: Global Young Academy. https://globalyoungacademy.net/activities/global-access-to-research-software/.
• Walsh, K. (2018) The Darker Side of Baconianism. Blog, University of Otaga (6 December). https://blogs.otago.ac.nz/emxphi/the-darker-side-of-baconianism/.
• Williamson, H. and Leonelli, S. (eds.) (2022) Towards Responsible Plant Data Linkage: Data Challenges for Agricultural Research and Development. Cham: Springer.
• Williamson, H. F. et al. (2023) Data Management Challenges for Artificial Intelligence in Plant and Agricultural Research. F1000Research, 10: 324. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.52204.2.
• Wyatt, S. et al. (eds.) (2000) Technology and In/equality: Questioning the Information Society. London: Routledge.
• Wylie, A. (2003) Why Standpoint Matters. In Figueroa, R. and Harding, S. (eds.), Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology. New York: Routledge, 26–48.
• Wylie, C. (2021) Preparing Dinosaurs: The Work Behind the Scenes. Chicago: Chicago University Press.